0
Chyort wrote...
Spoiler:
No one will start sending nukes because our leaders are pussies.
Every First and Second world countries have nukes, you launch one at them, they'll launch at you, its like being friends with someone, while constantly pointing your gun at him. And oh yeah, there is a spoil command.
Considering first or second country implies a state with a communist, republic, or parliamentary system literally 95% of the worlds first or second world countries DO NOT have nukes. The countries that do have nuclear capabilities are the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea(Non-ICBM), and Israel(undisclosed). As such, if one were to launch a nuke at some random country other than these listed and they will not launch a nuke at you obviously. That goes to saying that there's no reason any of these countries would not take action by sending off their own payloads but considering every continent has an effective actor with a BMD system in the status quo, nuclear war is practically security rhetoric. In my honest opinion, one must disregard all non-existential threats such as proliferation and use of nuclear weapons(as if.), bioterrorism, weaponizarion, ecocentric disaster porn, etc. and take a viewpoint that would lead to an unraveling to the truth which is that even with all these impacts and their supposed magnitude, there is a discontinuity between those that threaten 100% of a sovereign and it's neighbors and that which threatens 99%. While no empiric can be called to example to show how we survived extinction from such things, one must question the true weight of such things IF it was actually possible for such events to cause total collapse. Chaos cannot be diverted, that's a certainty, but one cannot disregard the saving feature of our race, ingenuity. As with this simple fact, learnt by a sparse population of every generation, we should await a more pressing matter that would change the world as we know it. In every man there lays two battles, the one within, and the one outside. The outside contains many anxiety-ridden things varying from such scares as a giant rock from space, a nuclear payload with the strength of 10,000 tonnes of TNT, or that stranger next door. The inside however, even whole directly affected by the outside, is an entirely different matter. What I fear endangers the American people, if not the entirety of our race and it's descendants, is the loss of value of life. In this ontological warfare, a man can die infinitely, outweighing that one death of physical life. A body counting in which every man is weighed as a point of standing reserve is terribly repressive of actual danger. How can you put value to the loss of humanity? That loss that would eventually link to genocide and mass killings because a loss of the barrier between worth and nothingness and from there the doom of civilization and this world. Sadly, this loss is inevitable in a world where we become enslaved to our own machinations of war, technology, and pleasure.
0
A lot of potent weapons have been made or crafted. But I am foolishly optimistic that they won't be used. Because it is akin to lifting a rock only to smash it on your foot as we say in my part of the world. The world appears to be very interconnected and interdependent economically and socially, with people running about all over the world, production chains littered around the entire world. I believe I maybe a bit naive, but it seems that globalisation is a good deterrent to using a weapon to devasate the entire country.
What would be a devasting blow in my opinion would be not be militaristic or even economic. It is more psychological. If the people in a nation are disunited and are in strife, the country is done for. No one would want to be part of the economy or defend the country. I would classify the former Soviet Union under this category.
What would be a devasting blow in my opinion would be not be militaristic or even economic. It is more psychological. If the people in a nation are disunited and are in strife, the country is done for. No one would want to be part of the economy or defend the country. I would classify the former Soviet Union under this category.
0
I'm being reminded of the Northeast blackout of 2003 where it only took one power plant going offline to cause that whole mess
It took 256(according to Wikipedia) power plants offline before the chain reaction was halted. 10 years later we are still vulnerable to something like that.
It took 256(according to Wikipedia) power plants offline before the chain reaction was halted. 10 years later we are still vulnerable to something like that.
0
As well, currency's the main issue for me, especially the U.S.D.
The U.S. Currency is what's known as fiat currency. Surprisingly, most people have NEVER heard of fiat currency, which is a bit frightening as well.
Basically, fiat currency is one in which value is backed by belief. If I were to pull out a $20 bill and ask a random stranger how much it's worth, they'd say, "$20." If I were to ask why, they would say, "Well, because it says it's worth $20."
In short, the U.S. Dollar is backed by NOTHING, except for belief.
Why I think it's a problem? As soon as people start believing that the money they carry in their wallets is worthless, currency loses strength, and the economy can collapse.
The U.S. Currency is what's known as fiat currency. Surprisingly, most people have NEVER heard of fiat currency, which is a bit frightening as well.
Basically, fiat currency is one in which value is backed by belief. If I were to pull out a $20 bill and ask a random stranger how much it's worth, they'd say, "$20." If I were to ask why, they would say, "Well, because it says it's worth $20."
In short, the U.S. Dollar is backed by NOTHING, except for belief.
Why I think it's a problem? As soon as people start believing that the money they carry in their wallets is worthless, currency loses strength, and the economy can collapse.
0
OP I hope you realise that the US military uses EMP hardened equipment for this scenario. Sure the civilian infrastructure will be damaged but the army sure as hell won't be.
Tbh the biggest threat to the US atm is money or the lack of it.
Tbh the biggest threat to the US atm is money or the lack of it.
0
Infiltrators than gain access to the our every day needs and stop the flow of it. Our power, roads, communications, food supplies all gone the people would destroy them selves in their selfishness. You could also spread rumors to cause hate and fear among the people.
0
My personal opinion is that hacking will be a considerable weapon in the future of warfare and my potentially become the most devastating weapon we have seen. Imagine, a team of hackers in the US developing a virus that will stall the development of nuclear powerplants in another country. The fact is, this has already happened...Stuxnet. This virus was reportedly developmented jointly by the US and Israel (source) against Iran in an attempt to slow their refinement of nuclear material. Stuxnet was the pioneering virus that woke up people to the threat of viruses in the real world in 2010. Its ingenious design and complexity led it to be labeled as the first true weaponized computer virus. Stuxnet was truly a weapon, it slowly destroyed nuclear centrifuges needed to refine the nuclear material by increasing the speed at which they rotate until they fracture. How did the plant operators not notice the increase in speed you wonder? Stuxnet was a very complex virus that even manipulated the control system monitors to display normal readings so that no one would get suspicious.
Just imagine the impact this kind of warfare will have on the future. Armies of hackers tempting to gain access to other nation's core systems - power distribution, water control systems of major cities, communications systems, military weapon systems(UAVs/Drone aircraft). Other viruses of a similar complexity have already been surfacing since the discovery of Stuxnet like Duqu and Flame. Through these kinds of computer viruses are not the most dangerous threats out there nowadays they will surely become one in the coming decades.
Just imagine the impact this kind of warfare will have on the future. Armies of hackers tempting to gain access to other nation's core systems - power distribution, water control systems of major cities, communications systems, military weapon systems(UAVs/Drone aircraft). Other viruses of a similar complexity have already been surfacing since the discovery of Stuxnet like Duqu and Flame. Through these kinds of computer viruses are not the most dangerous threats out there nowadays they will surely become one in the coming decades.
0
Easy quetion i would say FEAR or the mind. for example some poeple are afraid of the dark they go nowhere near it. the reason it is a good "devistating blow" is because you can not cure it, NO ONE is immune to it and for "the mind" you can simply twist someone's brain into thinking he is sourended y tratoirs paranoia and much more. In short words, mental state it the key.
0
Kutharos
Not a dentist
New imagio wrote...
I'm being reminded of the Northeast blackout of 2003 where it only took one power plant going offline to cause that whole messIt took 256(according to Wikipedia) power plants offline before the chain reaction was halted. 10 years later we are still vulnerable to something like that.
I was going to respond to something like that, but you are spot on. Our National power grid is so poorly handled, that one trip of the swtich can send half the country in ruins.
We use electricity for everyhting, refrigeration, communication, etc. If I was going to strike against America, I would just send spies as Engineers and cripple the entire electric grid of the US. Why go through the use of an EMP when flipping a few switches does just fine?
0
Almost all american military has all units/tech such as tanks, aircraft, icbm or silos ARE emp shielded for a fact. thats why they invested crazy money into that giant laser system that shoots down missiles(granted its in the trash can now). I speak with knowing this for a fact.
Neutron bombs are the new thing. Destroys all living things while leaving all non bio objects unharmed. Haveing your enemy's die from a fission reaction more or less and melting on the spot while taking there city's and bases is all the new rage for warfare.
Neutron bombs are the new thing. Destroys all living things while leaving all non bio objects unharmed. Haveing your enemy's die from a fission reaction more or less and melting on the spot while taking there city's and bases is all the new rage for warfare.
0
i think that the most devastating blow to a country would be to eliminate (blow up) their nuclear facilities. such attack would would send a domino effect on a country, first would be the nuclear explosion caused by the uranium inside the facility (obviously) that would take a lot of lives considering that most nuclear power plants are near cities, the next would be water poisoning, considering if the uranium-235 would seep down into the water pipes and water reservoirs, contaminating the local water supply, killing the people who will drink the water. next would be the contamination of the local produce, the people would be banned in harvesting crops because the crops because they might be contaminated with radioactive chemicals. killing anyone who will eat the produce. next would be air. the nuclear chemicals would soon be airborne considering the fumes that would come out the facility. anyone who breathes within the contamination radius would be affected by the chemical hazards and would soon die. next would be the mass hysteria that would envelope the country. sparking "end-of-the-world" beliefs, massive rallies and demonstrations would start around government facilities and soon, the people would ransack the government, killing anyone who has allegiance to the president of that country. such an event would cripple the morale of the country itself. destroying it's ability to strike back. that tactic would be better than any other tactic. and stopping the risk of death among the soldiers of the invading coutry.
remember what happened to CHERNOBYL? the place is a ghost town just because of the nuclear accident that occurred there a few years back.
remember the crazies movie? that would work too...
imagine if an invading country would develop a a bio-weapon capable of destabilizing a country's population. so instead that a country would strike back, they would only end up fighting their own population considering the massive outbreak of hysteria and disease that would envelop the country.
remember what happened to CHERNOBYL? the place is a ghost town just because of the nuclear accident that occurred there a few years back.
remember the crazies movie? that would work too...
imagine if an invading country would develop a a bio-weapon capable of destabilizing a country's population. so instead that a country would strike back, they would only end up fighting their own population considering the massive outbreak of hysteria and disease that would envelop the country.
0
[align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]Let's make it more... interesting. Sure, we can toss around EMPs or nukes, but they only are a cause. If you were to ask me, the most devastating blow to a country is the death of its people. A country lives on due to its people - a country is more than a mass of land; it is its culture, cuisine, religion, traditions... all of which are expressed through its people. Kill the people; kill the country.
